Talk:Connor Goodwolf

Hahaha. He's editing his own page during a time of controversy. Conflict of interest? Maybe something could go up about his history of stalking and harassment (managing to outcrazy two of his known victims, CrusaderCat and Blazger, in the process) as it helps flesh out just what kind of nutjob this guy is. --74.43.49.13 21:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The format of a wiki article is formalist. Opinions about events should not be voiced as facts (this is straight from the guidelines for contribution, which you can find in the community resources). Users who wish to opine on themselves and their experiences are provided with a user talk page for this purpose. An article proper is reserved for factually supported, neutrally worded statements of fact. MuonDecay 23:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

He's nothing but a drama whore. Calls for the ban of an art JUST because he hates it. Champions the 2nd Amendment, calls for censorship of the 1st. Hypocrite much? --24.147.229.201 18:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Contents

I have uploaded the image that is most common of InsaneKangaroo, the only other one is a blue one playing a keyboard. If anyone has any better ones please upload them so the article can have an illustration or two so it isnt as bland. Leon Hunter 06:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems Ross is edit warring with me over the inclusion of the image. My reasons for wanting it in the article is that he (until a short time ago) used it on all his accounts as his icon, it is one of a handful of images drawn by the subject and makes this article instantly recognisable as being related to the Insane Kanagroo on other sites where he used it as his icon for an extensive period of time. Furthermore the article is rathor bland and an image of any sort related to the subject would increase the quality of it. Leon Hunter 06:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It is customary on WikiFur not to use images of individuals' characters without their permission, and especially not against their express wishes. While we have made exceptions in the past, it is usually only for those people which were also refused exclusion for having broken laws or committed fraud. --GreenReaper(talk) 01:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll gladly give a statement if citations are required, but will not legitimatize sites like Furrydrama_2 which are critic sites. These aren't sites like saying news organizations which are biased but sites which perpetually cause even more drama to situations. You state also these sites use public data, then quote the public data instead of using a critic site which is being used to proxy and turn stories in to drama fests.

The problem with the critic sites are the community and what they also stand for in general. Yes I was apart of Furrydrama_2 for a time for about 8 months. I usually go to those places to watch drama, but the community was apart of the drama in some way. This is why I will not support them and don't want my article, or any on wikifur for the matter, to utilize furrydrama_2 as a source Insane Kangaroo 01:52, 18 August 2013 (EDT)

In short, useful if they serve me as a purpose/source (FA, Anthrocon, Kage, Dragoneer), not "legitimate" when it inconveniences me. Sorry, can't do. Some critic (some) sites are considered valid resources sites, as they carry valid current data, or data that has been deleted or has gone 404, and can only be accessed via their pages. No, sorry, those links were being used for valid reference links sources here, not lulz material generation. Go crazy not supporting them, but they are still valid ref links. - Spirou 04:39, 18 August 2013 (EDT)

Also, "Discussion about these points are only permitted here if it backs up my argument, otherwise, I will delete them". No, that’s not how it works either, I'm afraid. Revert removal of responses to the subject on both sections. And take five (well 24) to think about a better debating solution than just erasing somebody's response. - Spirou 09:58, 18 August 2013 (EDT)

Spirou, I have to apologize on this one. I erroneously last night clicked one of the tabs thinking the page was refreshed and seen the original Wiki talk page before I asked my question. In turn I actually thought my question was reverted. Insane Kangaroo 17:39, 18 August 2013 (EDT)

Then perhaps I was gearing for a different written style along where quotes from Kage should've been excluded as well. To begin, my page with was written with negative connotation, intended or not those should've been written neutrally like the Flayrah article mentioning relevancy to statements like "public alarm" and "police concern" where those statements were debated by factual information. Insane Kangaroo 17:43, 18 August 2013 (EDT)

(Acknowledged the un-intentional deletion). Now: Different wording, actually using these sites' references directly instead of their in-site quotes, finding other ways to display or inform the public of what transpired more to your liking without total omission?. Fine idea. Deletion of references from sites with valid data that you yourself have used in the past to gather data about other people to your own benefit, which you now find them "inconvenient" because you are at the other side of the barrel of the information gun? (no pun intended)... Kind of hypocritical, n'est-ce pas?.

Tl;dr: "I'll gladly give a statement if citations are required, but will not legitimatize sites like Furrydrama_2 which are critic sites". Doing so in the first place, without just total omission with no back-up of your own would have saved people a lot of wasted time. - Spirou 22:39, 18 August 2013 (EDT)

In the engagements of AlertPay and e621, I didn't use Furrydrama_2 to farm data, much of the time articles end up on /furi/ first. FD_2 reported on the loss and I commented on the submission. While may have been entertained by watching furry drama unfold, the entertainment started to sour once I realized furries were their own worst enemy. Quite honestly the section on e621 is grossly lacking of facts and it's only recently I've paid attention to the section. Insane Kangaroo 00:05, 19 August 2013 (EDT)

The inclusion of WTAE's story on open carry is to solidify the position about people being okay with open carry in the Pittsburgh area, in which the intent to prove Kage's statement to be incorrect. If I've somehow not made such facts clear by the statement then I'll gladly take some critique on how to properly convey the results. Feel free to expand on the topic, I'm definitely going to include the PA yearly MPOETC training, as all officers are required to know about the legalities of open carry in PA. Harassment of law abiding citizens will not be tolerated. Insane Kangaroo

Wikifur is not a political soapbox, the data was superfluous in relation to the Anthrocon ban. Much luck in creating that offsite information web page about the public opinion on open carry in the city of Pittsburgh. Not here, though. - Spirou 04:39, 18 August 2013 (EDT)

I didn't intent to write soap box statements. If that's the case then I shouldn't have put in Kage's statement soapboxing his opinion of public fear or police concern, opinion which is incorrect, especially in Pittsburgh where more and more people have started to open carry. Insane Kangaroo 17:57, 18 August 2013 (EDT)

If you feel that way about Kage's statement, fine, make a point about it on the talk pages for further discussion, and if compelling, changes in the article itself. It still does not give a valid point for the insertion of non-directly (emphasis directly) related data to the incident (the price of rice in China et al) - Spirou 22:39, 18 August 2013 (EDT)

Placing Kage's statement without rebuttal is quite biased and makes the section to seem legitimate as to what he infers about the general public and police. Kage's statement should be omitted or a rebuttal needs to be specified, may even referencing the flayrah article from GreenReaper's own research. While I've not added any positive engagement in the fandom, which there have been several cases where I've intervened, the current page is incredibly negatively biased. Insane Kangaroo 23:55, 18 August 2013 (EDT)

"Placing Kage's statement without rebuttal is quite biased",... His (Kage) statement about the ban and why is clear in the article, accompanied by a proper reference link.

And there is also a clearly specified rebuttal to it (yours). It starts with "The response from Mr. Ross was as follows: I was banned because I'm an open carrier....", also backed up by a proper reference link (Stand up for civil rights, get banned from Anthrocon). - Spirou 00:21, 19 August 2013 (EDT)

"The current page is incredibly negatively biased.", No that's your opinion, and an opinion is not a fact. I have gone thought the article, and there is nothing that has not being covered and backed up. I have done the same to other articles where large swaths of Controversy are present, and have heavily edit out "Controversy" allegations and statements that were not accurate, false, or relevant. See Sibe's article and it's editing history page as an example, and you will see all the data that was not referenced, inaccurate or furry or Sibe related that I had taken out.

So, no, you are not being singled out for being an open carry member by the Hidden Socialist Hordes hidden within Wikifur. Just keeping the article formatted and referenced, on the subject, while preventing other users from vandalizing the article. - Spirou 00:21, 19 August 2013 (EDT)

The subject of this article has requested personal exclusion. If you wish to object to this request, please do so within 24 hours. --GreenReaper(talk) 17:32, 18 August 2013 (EDT)

I decided to make an account for this post as I didn’t want any unsavoury stalking to occur by the subject of the article. I genuinely believe that granting personal exclusion is not, to put it at its mildest, within the interests of WikiFur or the broader anthropomorphic community. So I’m going to attempt to marshal my facts and explain why that is as best I can. But before I do this I feel it is necessary to point out that WikiFur operates on a system of consensus, a weighing of arguments. I fear given the subject’s reputation for vindictive behaviour (as demonstrated on the article concerned) that many members of the furry community who are familiar with the subject matter would be hesitant to comment here with their views for fear of retribution/outing…and so it is especially important that due weight be placed on the strength of the arguments rather than just how many people are saying them.

Firstly, it must be said that Mr Ross is by no means an unknown entity within the furry community. If this were just another vanity article of a non-notable subject than I would be all for personal exclusion. That is not the case however. Regardless of any opinions of Mr Ross and his actions, he is a notable subject within the furry community of his own accord. It would appear to me that Mr Ross has requested personal exclusion solely on the grounds that he doesn’t want people documenting his actions and the general community responses to those actions at the time en mass . Unfortunately for Mr Ross, notability doesn’t work that way, you can’t just side step being notable when you don’t like it whilst simultaneously using your notability (as he has done on LiveJournal) to further your own agendas. If Mr Ross has issues with the content of the article, rather than attempting to white-wash it (as he has attempted to do in the last 48 hours) he should engage in the collaborative processes that WikiFur provides to all editors. WikiFur would be much less in terms of “a body of knowledge” if it were lacking an article on this individual who has been so proactive within the furry community, it would fly in the face of WikiFur’s objectives to grant exclusion.

Secondly, on a point of moral standards, I struggle to understand why the WikiFur community should extend to Mr Ross personal exclusion when he did not give the same courtesy to those featured on his infamous “Do Not Hug” database. I’m not saying I agree with the actions of the individuals on that site, in fact that’s completely irrelevant, but it does scream of double standards on a moral level for Mr Ross to use the internet as a medium to “present facts about other people regardless of their wishes” when all his article is doing is “presenting facts about Mr Ross”. ArtemisX 22:04, 18 August 2013 (EDT)

There's been no white washing. I wouldn't have made the request if it weren't for Spirou attempting to legitimize the critic sites as legit, plus the fact a quote from someone which is merely opinion.

Secondly, the page was created in a controversial matter from the beginning. Seeing as there's one admin who clearly doesn't like me and acts passive aggressive towards me, then there's also Spirou who won't let me neutralize summaries which have negative connotations. I'm aware there are many furries who don't like me, some do and some don't. The purpose of the page seems to merely be referred to as scare material than actually giving a proper overview of myself, the page itself I believe is faulty in content. You can't have just the bad without stating the good. Let me just say, in no way am I trying to white wash history, I'm not pulling a "delete fucking everything." Though maybe that's the problem with the furry fandom, people can't just let go of the drama. Too many leech on to it as if it's their lifeline to socializing. Personally, at first I thought watching drama was humorous, then as time went along it just got sad.

Thirdly, if you can't comment using your normal account, then your opinion holds less weight in this matter. Don't hide behind your monitor when you're wanting to be seen as serious. I'm rather curious if you're an administrator of Wikifur, are you afraid I'd drown you in a civil lawsuit which would bankrupt you? Are you afraid there will be other repercussions which will end your career? Do tell.

Also, I did remove people if they submitted a DCMA request, so to make a statement "I didn't remove people" is incorrect. The others were all, "Good, more advertising" to pass it off as inconsequential Insane Kangaroo 22:17, 18 August 2013 (EDT)

On another note, other pages have been excluded even though individuals have caused suffice amount of controversy in the community. It'd be unfortunate if there was a double standard going on. In addition, none of the controversy has been in reference or of the result in any unlawful action. Insane Kangaroo 23:34, 18 August 2013 (EDT)

"Then there's also Spirou who won't let me neutralize summaries which have negative connotations." Nope, you deleted valid reference links that you felt that put you in a negative light. No dice on the "I'm the victim" angle attempt. Also, not an iota of interest on who you are or what you do online/offline. Just making sure that needed references (not lulz commentary or drama llama generating posts) are not white washed out from articles.

"I'm rather curious if you're (ArtemisX) an administrator of Wikifur". One, no, he/she isn't, and two, don't dare threaten any user again onsite, are we clear?. - Spirou 23:56, 18 August 2013 (EDT)

I'm not attempting to paint myself as a victim, I merely want the sections to be neutral instead written to be biased and/or lacking of facts. If we're looking to public opinions about me on my page, then why not include them all shall we? Not only is the opinion negatively and unjustly harsh, it's false.

Threaten? I merely asked a question, at no point did I imply I'd thread a user. Insane Kangaroo 00:10, 19 August 2013 (EDT)

"Threaten? I merely asked a question, at no point did I imply I'd thread a user." (...) "Are you afraid I'd drown you in a civil lawsuit which would bankrupt you? Are you afraid there will be other repercussions which will end your career? Do tell." Yes, this is as much an "innocent question" as of a GBU-57A/B being a eco friendly lawnmower. - Spirou 00:29, 19 August 2013 (EDT)

Some people for odd reasons have implied I've gotten people fired from their jobs or had people thrown in jail, both false of course. I'm just curious why a person would hide behind an anonymous cloak. Insane Kangaroo 00:32, 19 August 2013 (EDT)

Curious. So why the immediate insinuation if the cloaked person was a Wikifur administrator?. - Spirou 00:46, 19 August 2013 (EDT)

There's someone who is biased on Wikifur staff who has also engaged in passive aggressive action against me. Insane Kangaroo 00:47, 19 August 2013 (EDT)

I can confidently say that I am not a WikiFur Administrator. If I were I would have banned you for disruption by now. That is purely my opinion and isn’t relevant at this point in time. But never the less, my decision to comment here under the circumstances I’ve chosen has been based on your past behaviours of outing people whom you have disagreements with, evidence of which you don’t have to look far for. So you’d do well to keep your petty threats and insults to yourself, David. Contrary to your own beliefs I could have commented as an IP address and the views expressed would still hold the same weight as any other user. Adhomenium attacks (“your opinion holds less weight in this matter”) on the credibility of an account/user does not detract from the point they are trying to make and your attempt to do this would have only served to damage your exclusion request, providing all the more reason as to why this article does infact serve a purpose.

Your claim that you removed people from DNH if they submitted a DMCA request is almost certainly false as it would be self-defeating, given the lack of any third-party citation to this effect I have no reason to believe you are telling the truth.

Lastly, could you please provide a citation for a relevant example where a controversial figure was excluded when an objection was posted to that exclusion? Even if you could, I think it would be fair to say that no two people are equal and that you would easily be one of the more controversial members of the furry fandom. Consider it a compliment that I feel you deserve an article on this wonderful collaborative project. So how about we agree to disagree and find a way to move forward, which accommodates my wishes for a factually accurate article and your wishes for it to be neutral? ArtemisX 01:33, 19 August 2013 (EDT)

All you need is my word and that's good enough, no proof is required. I've always been a truthful individual, you won't find anyone who will dispute the fact. One of the more controversial individuals would be CrusaderCat. I learned about furry stalkers after commenting on his page and including a satire article. The guy wouldn't stop harassing me one way or another non stop over a drawing. I'm a bit careful now not to engage people who are autistic (his father's statement). After my talk with his father he stopped stalking me for a while, persisted and lost interest before quitting the fandom. Though his exclusion request was approximately a year before he left. On the last bit, I'm already collaborating with GreenReaper and talking with Spirou Insane Kangaroo 01:41, 19 August 2013 (EDT)

Well I am glad you're getting involved in the collaborative process instead of resorting to personal exclusion. Though I need to stress that the way forward is limited only by your willingness to compromise, same can be said of Spirou. Regarding the article's content, I do agree that some work is needed to resolve outstanding issues. I for one feel it is vitally important that WikiFur refrains from distributing opinion as fact, thus preserving the ability of readers to make up their own god damn minds. An example of this not being the case would be the section on the AlertPay incident, which includes an opinion that it was "quite possibly the lowest, shittiest, underhanded, vindictively stupid thing I've seen anyone do to another web site." - Some readers will disagree with that statement in support of Mr Ross, others (like I) will agree with it, but in any case the statement doesn't need to be in the article and it's presence merely restricts a reader's ability to formulate their own opinions based on the facts alone. I'm getting the impression that one of Mr Ross' biggest reasons for requesting exclusion is the simple fact that the article (in its present form) is reading along the lines of "Here's what happened and this is how you're going to feel about it (negative)". To which I sympathize completely, but would rather fix the problems than resort to exclusion. ArtemisX 02:08, 19 August 2013 (EDT)

Temporary ban/time outs for removal of ongoing discussions by any editors (including colleagues/curators) that have been reverted on an ongoing discussion have been implemented many times in the past.

If a intended short ban based on the removal of an editor comment, even if him/she is a is colleague are the one being affected on the discussion he/she is part of, is "is seldom appropriate", what other options does the it give these affected colleagues/curators if they wish to warn the offending party about their deletion/removal/vandalism with the use of a ban? (No, I did not ban him because he deleted my comments, I would have done so for any other editors, including staff).

(It's noted and acknowledged that the party in question admitted that the deletion was unintentional). - Spirou 22:39, 18 August 2013 (EDT)

In my view, they should look to resolve the situation in a different way. The fact that it's been done before doesn't mean it's a good idea. Blocks are a big deal - they go on someone's permanent record - and should be used only to prevent damage to the wiki; not as a warning, or as a means to enforce a preferred version of an article. I can see one being used for ten minutes to get the attention of someone doing something thoughtless who isn't looking at their talk page, but that's quite different from deliberately excluding an editor who disagrees with you as another editor on a matter of content. Such a person is not inherently causing damage to the wiki because disagreement about content and boldly editing it is a natural part of the editing process; moreover, the matter is restricted to a single page.

As for what you can do, you answered your own question - you can warn another editor on their talk page that the wholesale removal of contributions is not appropriate, and may result in a block if continued. That you would not be the person to apply such a block is immaterial. If it was an accident, as apparently was the case here, this gives the user a chance to remedy the issue. If such activity continues, you can ask an unrelated colleague to review the situation. They may make their own warning, and ultimately block the user if they feel it appropriate. Essentially, you are resolving the conflict of interests by recusing yourself.

I appreciate it is difficult because we do not have the same number of editors as, say, Wikipedia. However, it is important that curators not be seen to be using their own powers to enforce their own editorial opinions, even if that is not their actual intention. It is just too easy to use privileges to revert an article to a preferred version, protect it, and block other users from editing. This is inappropriate because a curator's edits and opinions are not necessarily better than those of any other contributor. --GreenReaper(talk) 00:26, 19 August 2013 (EDT)

"However, it is important that curators not be seen to be using their own powers to enforce their own editorial opinions". Understood. But like you said, we are a bit shorthanded, and the deletion on the comments on two different sections seemed to imply that discussion was the furthest thing from the person's mind after my rebuttal,... specially since he had plenty of time to revert the mistake. - Spirou 00:40, 19 August 2013 (EDT)

I've wrote the section since not only the sequence was out of order but there were missing facts which are stated elsewhere on WikiFur.

I did have trouble inserting this section, the "controversy" mainly circled around the closure, not follow-up statements. Far as I'm aware there was no large discussion or debate relating to my journal entry on what artists should do if they find their works on e621.net hosted without their permission. Some artists are okay with people posting their work elsewhere, some aren't. The journal entry was created for those who had troubles with the previous owner ignoring requests for removal. Varka and company on the other hand, far as I'm aware, is very prompt regarding removing works of artists.